Vinoba Bhave University vs M/S Design Team Architect And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 13 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Arb. Appeal No. 6 of 2016

      Vinoba Bhave University                          ...          Appellant
                                       Versus
      M/s Design Team Architect and Civil Engineers, Ranchi
                                               ...      Respondent

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant : Mrs. I. S. Choudhary, Adv.

      For the Respondent                 : Mr. P. Neeraj Rai, Adv.



19 / 04.01.2021      Heard the parties through video conferencing.

The argument of this appeal by the parties was concluded on 06.10.2020. Perusal of the record reveals that one of the points for determination in this appeal is "(i) Whether the award impugned before the learned court below can be set aside on the ground of incompetency of the sole arbitrator appointed by the designated Bench of this court having not been duly appointed in terms of the clause 10 of the agreement between the parties?"

Undisputedly, in this case, the sole arbitrator is not anyone appointed by the Council of Architecture New Delhi. Perusal of clause 15 of the agreement between the parties, which reads as under:

"All differences and disputes arising between the client and the Architect on any matter connected with the agreement or in regard to the interpretation of the content thereof shall be referred to the Council of Architecture New Delhi for final decision."

So the issue for consideration before this court is when the parties have agreed in clause 10 of the agreement which is the clause relating to the arbitration that the differences and disputes arising between the parties were to be referred to the Council of Architecture New Delhi whether any person other than the one appointed by or in consultation with the Council of Architecture New Delhi can be appointed as an arbitrator.

It is pertinent to mention there that no argument was advanced by either of the parties to this appeal at the time of hearing of the appeal on this issue. Hence, this court instead of delivering the judgment thought it fit to give opportunity to the parties to this appeal to advance their argument on this issue only. Therefore, this appeal has been listed today under the heading "Orders".

Learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent jointly pray for listing of this case after the lockdown is over.

Prayer is allowed.

List this case one week after the lockdown is over.

(ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-